It is a significant understatement to say that I carry no water for rationalists, but I would nonetheless love to see you attempt to defend this claim that they broadly seek to repress speech they don't agree with.
That's not it at all. The point is that rationalism (in all other contexts) down right celebrates pointed and extensive criticism of others' ideas. Rationalists, stated bluntly, are "jerks who want to be right all the time", and they will tear apart arguments that they feel are wrong.
Except when a rationalist is the target, then they circle the wagons like this and claim that their speech is being "repressed" and that they shouldn't be criticized in this way.
Well, they argue they shouldn’t be criticized because they think the criticisms are wrong. But isn’t that just disagreement, in the same blunt style you acknowledge is common? I don’t see many voices saying (and Alexander certainly didn’t say) that Cade Metz should be fired or nobody should read the NYT.
